Standing Committee E

[Mr. Peter Atkinson in the Chair]

Communications Bill

Clause 276 - Programme production

Kim Howells: I beg to move amendment No. 538, in
clause 276, page 243, line 15, leave out 'that OFCOM consider appropriate' and insert 
 '(if any) that OFCOM consider appropriate in the case of that service'.

Peter Atkinson: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 395, in 
clause 276, page 243, line 17, leave out from first 'that' to end of line and insert 'a substantial and significant'.
 Government amendment No. 539. 
 Amendment No. 352, in 
clause 276, page 243, line 17, leave out from 'a' to end of line 19 and insert 
 'substantial and significant proportion of Channel 3 programmes made in the United Kingdom are programmes made in the regions and nations of the United Kingdom outside the M25 area'.
 Government amendment No. 540. 
 Amendment No. 353, in 
clause 276, page 243, line 22, leave out 'suitable' and insert 'wide'.
 Government amendment No. 541. 
 Amendment No. 396, in 
clause 276, page 243, line 24, leave out from 'that' to 'proportion' and insert 'a substantial and significant'.
 Amendment No. 354, in 
clause 276, page 243, line 24, leave out 'suitable' and insert 'substantial and significant'.
 Government amendments Nos. 542 to 545. 
 Amendment No. 355, in 
clause 276, page 243, line 42, at end add 
 'and means both network and regional programmes'.
 Amendment No. 357, in 
clause 278, page 246, line 9, after first 'the', insert 
 'regions and nations of the'.
 Government amendments Nos. 546 to 548.

Kim Howells: it is a pity that we did not have enough time on Tuesday to discuss clauses 269 and 270, as the Government amendments to those clauses were a key component of our implementation of the recommendations of the Independent Television Commission's review of the programme supply market. The Government amendments to clauses 276 and 278 also implement the ITC's recommendations,
 and I wish to say a little bit about the review before we get into the detail of them.
 As hon. Members will know, the Government asked the ITC to undertake that review in response to concerns expressed during the consultation on the draft Bill about the overall economic health of the programme supply market and the position of independent producers within it. I was very concerned about that, as were other hon. Members. We wanted to establish the facts and to consider ways in which the market might operate more efficiently and a strong UK production base could be encouraged. 
 The ITC's authoritative and incisive report was published in November, and it commands the respect of the whole industry. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced that the Government had accepted all but two of the ITC's recommendations. As a result, we have tabled a substantial body of amendments. They require all broadcasters to draw up and agree with Ofcom codes of practice for their dealings with independent producers.

Michael Fabricant: Although this question might not be strictly in order, does the Minister agree that it is as important to have independent production in radio as it is to have it in television? In replying, he might prefer to make a philosophical comment than to offer a firm commitment.

Kim Howells: We will deal with radio later, but I agree entirely. First, independent production is a great impetus to competition; secondly, on the television side, it has dramatically illustrated the talent and creativity that is out there, and the quota system has guaranteed that that creativity continues to be tapped. The ITC's authoritative and incisive report, which was published in November, dealt with much of that.
 Our amendments will also give Ofcom the power to measure the independent productions quota by value as well as by volume, if that is appropriate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that we will allow the independent productions quota to be measured separately on BBC 1 and BBC 2. We will also require Ofcom to review periodically the way in which the quota is working and to report to the Secretary of State. We will give Ofcom the power to require broadcasters to make up any shortfall in the quota in subsequent years, and we will give it greater powers to review licence obligations on change of control of Channel 3; to extend those powers to include Channel Five; to give Channel Five targets for programme making and investment in the regions; and to give Channel 4 a new target for investment in the regions to sit alongside its existing regional programme-making obligations. 
 We will discuss the amendments relating to the codes of practice when we consider schedule 12, and the amendments relating to change of control when we come to clauses 339 and 340, but the amendments that we are discussing today are those that relate to regional programme making. 
 Amendment No. 543 gives Channel Five a new requirement for programme making in the United 
 Kingdom outside the M25 area. Ofcom will include licence conditions to secure that 
''a suitable proportion of the programmes''
 representing 
''a suitable proportion of the expenditure of the provider of Channel 5''
 will be made at 
''a suitable range of . . . production centres.''
 Amendments Nos. 538 to 540 are drafting improvements to clause 276(1) to clarify the programme production conditions to be included by Ofcom in the regulatory regime for every Channel 3 service. They make it clear that, although quotas for regional production will be met by looking at Channel 3 as a whole, that will necessitate individually tailored conditions in each licence. The amendments make clear Ofcom's power to do that. 
 Amendments Nos. 541 and 542 require Ofcom to ensure that regional programme production by value takes place at a suitable range of production centres in the UK outside the M25 area. 
 Amendments Nos. 544 and 545 define terms used in clause 276. In amendment No. 544, Channel 3 programmes are defined as networked programmes on regional Channel 3 services and any programme on a national Channel 3 service that is not a regional programme.

Richard Allan: My understanding of amendment No. 542 is that it introduces the concept of different production centres outside the M25 area. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the amendment reflects concerns expressed to me, especially by companies such as Yorkshire Television, that they did not want the quota to read simply ''outside the M25'', which could be interpreted to mean ''in the home counties just outside the M25''. They want Ofcom to be able to require good production centres in Leeds, for example.

Kim Howells: Yes, and I hope that I made my views abundantly clear in debates on clauses earlier in the Bill. The issue is important not because of some nit-picking regulation, but because that is how successful programmes are made-how the products that people want to watch are created.
 Amendment No. 544 defines ''expenditure'', to eliminate any doubt that things such as overheads and capital investment that are not attributable to a particular programme, and expenditure on buying programmes should be regarded as expenditure. ''Expenditure'' replaces ''investment'', which could be given a narrower meaning than we intended-capital expenditure, for example. Amendment No. 545 provides a definition of a ''regional programme'' for a national Channel 3 service, and is consequential to amendment No. 544, which uses the term. 
 Amendment No. 547 will require that in addition to the requirement on Ofcom to set licence conditions for regional programme making for Channel 4, Ofcom is to secure that 
''a suitable proportion of the expenditure of C4C''
 is spent 
''on programmes made in the United Kingdom''
 at a suitable range of production centres outside the M25 area. 
 Amendment No. 546 is a minor consequential amendment. Amendment No. 548 defines the term ''expenditure'' as it applies to the new Channel 4 requirement on the same basis as under clause 276 for Channel 3 and Channel Five. 
 The amendments strengthen the requirements for regional programme production that we have set out in the Bill and reinforce our commitment to the regional dimension to public service broadcasting. 
 Amendments Nos. 352, 354, 395 and 396, would remove the word ''suitable'' and replace it with ''substantial and significant'' as that relates to Channel 3's requirement for programme production and investment in programme making in the United Kingdom outside the M25 area. They would also include in the clause an additional reference to production ''in the nations and regions''. We had a long and interesting debate on that topic on Tuesday, and we have discussed it in earlier sittings. 
 The production requirements set out in clause 276 are designed to strike the right balance between ensuring the continuation of high-quality regional output, maintaining strong regional production centres, and avoiding unreasonable interference in the broadcasters' management and scheduling decisions. There is no reason why a ''suitable'' amount could not, in some circumstances, be regarded as ''substantial and significant''. The current wording, however, provides for flexibility, so that targets can be maintained at what Ofcom might consider to be appropriate levels. 
 Ofcom will be able to secure a suitable portion of the Channel 3 investment in radio production centres in different parts of the UK outside the M25 area. That represents a firm requirement for regional production that will meet the needs of different communities and cultural interests, and it will help to develop creative talent and production skills in the regions. We do not, therefore, consider that the non-Government amendments are necessary and I hope that hon. Members will consider not pressing them. 
 Amendment No. 353 proposes that the Channel 3 programmes made in the UK outside the M25 area, when taken together, should constitute a ''wide'' range of programmes rather than a ''suitable'' range of programmes, as is currently required. Ofcom must, as I have just mentioned, be able to secure the appropriate licence conditions for each service. In some cases, a ''suitable'' range of programmes could indeed be a ''wide'' range, but Ofcom should be given the necessary flexibility to set the right target for each individual service. I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) will not press his amendment. 
 Amendment No. 355 proposes that Ofcom should consider 
''both network and regional programmes''
 when it requires that a suitable proportion of Channel 3 programmes is made in the UK outside the M25 area. The hon. Gentleman will wish to note that the clause only includes regional programme production as a proportion of networked Channel 3 programmes, because suitable targets for the regional production of regional programmes that should be included in a Channel 3 service are covered in clause 277. We will turn our attention to that clause shortly and I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment. 
 Amendment No. 357 to clause 278 seeks to secure a target for Channel 4's programme production in the nations and regions of the UK when it applies the target for programme production outside the M25 area. I sympathise with the spirit of the amendment, but I believe that the requirement that we have just introduced for Ofcom to set Channel 4 a suitable investment target in a range of production centres within the UK outside the M25 area is the most appropriate response. I pay tribute to Channel 4, which has been involved in some tremendous projects throughout the country in terms of commissioning productions and being at the centre of initiatives in the creative industries sector that are valuable to the regions and the country. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment.

John Greenway: We welcome the Government amendments, especially when we reflect on our debate on Tuesday morning about the core issues regarding the extent to which we can place obligations on a commercial channel whose revenue stream is unpredictable. We have to seek a sensible balance. The ITC review concludes that the amount of regionally produced programmes for the ITV network has reduced. There is clearly a good opportunity for not only Channel 3, but Channel 4, Channel Five and the BBC, to strengthen their regional production for network television. I am inclined to agree with the Minister that his proposed overall structure probably achieves the necessary flexibility while also giving powers, and teeth, to Ofcom to ensure that the trend to which I referred is checked and, if possible, reversed.
 One element of the future arrangements could still be reconsidered. Unfortunately, Mr. Atkinson, on Tuesday we were not able to discuss the role of independent producers. The relevant clauses were passed without discussion because of the guillotine. We accepted that, but Mr. Gale suggested that, when we came to other clauses that touched on matters that had not been discussed, we might try to work in a comment or two about them. 
 The Government and Ofcom have room to go further in respect of independent producers. Although we now expect ITV/Channel 3 to come under a single ownership regime, it will still have 15 different licences and 15 different regional production centres-that is, 15 different centres of excellence that are capable of making programmes for network television for Channel 3, Channel 4, Channel Five, the BBC and channels that are not delivered terrestrially other than digitally. 
 Tyne Tees Television is located in my part of the world, and one of the Labour Members said that its 
 share of production for the network had fallen quite dramatically in the past two or three years. Tyne Tees Television can still produce programmes for network television, but what it cannot do at the moment is make programmes that satisfy the independent quota of other channels. 
 We know that the ITC has rejected the concept of regional ITV licensees fulfilling or contributing towards the independent quota of the various channels-including, of course, the BBC. We understand why the ITC has decided that those licensees are not independent, but the consequence of that decision is perverse in two distinct ways. First, it means that, to meet their independent quota, the other network companies-Channel 4, Channel Five and the BBC in particular-will have to source their programmes from other producers. Secondly, the definition of ''outside the M25 area'' will not lead those other network companies to source from independent producers that are based in different regions to the same extent as the Channel 3 licensees are. 
 If the objective is to secure more regional production for network television, simply depending on the independent production sector for the independent quota will not achieve that objective. If we were to allow relaxation of the definition of independence, that would achieve not only the Government's objectives, but enable the various channels that will be affected by the provisions to work with Ofcom to achieve the outcome that I believe all members of the Committee want.

Simon Thomas: Another way to achieve the hon. Gentleman's objectives, with which I have considerable sympathy, would be to support the amendments tabled in my name and those of the hon. Members for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) and for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) to ensure that there is a substantial range of programming and that it is based in the ''regions and nations'' of the United Kingdom. Does he accept that the framework of the Bill in setting the quotas for independent production has not taken into account the argument that he advanced? If his suggestion were accepted, perhaps we would need to go back to the quota and decide whether it is generous enough if we are to include Channel 3 franchise companies within independent production.

John Greenway: That is a very good try by the hon. Gentleman to persuade me to support his amendment, but his proposal is not the same as mine. I agree that our aims and objectives may be similar, but I do not believe that Ofcom will have inadequate power. The Minister has fully explained that ''significant'' may mean ''substantial''. The existing wording is sufficient.
 If we want to encourage more regional production, we have to ask ourselves where the programme producers are now who are capable of producing good programmes for network television that companies will want to buy and that advertisers will want to support. They have a role to play, too. We could almost throw the baby out with the bath water 
 if, by refusing to concede that the smaller, licensed ITV companies that are spread throughout the regions can do the job. For example, Harlech Television, Tyne Tees TV, Anglia Television and Scottish Television-to which I shall return in a moment-have produced tremendous programmes for network television. Let us bear in mind Tyne Tees TV and its Catherine Cookson programmes. 
 Those television companies can do the job. We need to think long and hard about whether, by excluding them from a definition of independent production in respect of other channels, we will be killing off the potential. The proposal that Ofcom will impose requirements on future Channel 3 licensees in the application stage is an improvement on what exists now. It will require them to explain what programmes that they will make for the network, but there is no guarantee that the proposed programmes would get on the network. The other channels may wish to show such programmes, especially if they had been shown before and were reasonably popular with a minority audience. I am not talking about programmes that could deliver the 10 million-plus audiences that ITV wants, but those that could deliver 3 or 4 million would be ideal for Channel 4 or Channel Five and they could contribute towards the independent quota.

Michael Fabricant: I have been following my hon. Friend's argument and I agreed with him all along except for the point that he has just made. Given that regional Channel 3 companies such as Tyne Tees TV, Border TV and Grampian TV have not been able to get their programmes on the national network and programmes may be available for repeat broadcasts on Channel 4 or Channel Five, is there not a great danger that Channel 4 and Channel Five might seek to meet their 25 per cent. independent production quota by buying cheap repeats?

John Greenway: No, I do not think so, but I understand my hon. Friend's point. It is generous of you to allow me stray on to the issue of independent production, Mr. Atkinson, and I hope that you will allow me to respond to my hon. Friend.
 We need not regard the figure of 25 per cent. as being written on a tablet of stone. There are smaller independents, some of which may be based in London. Fulfilling the independent quota and the ''outside the M25'' quota is not one and the same thing. There may be occasions on which a programme that meets both of those requirements will be produced and shown on the network, but the two quotas are not mutually inclusive. They both stand on their own. 
 I shall later suggest how my proposal might be done experimentally, but let us say that, as a consequence of my suggestion, there were an emergence, resurgence or renaissance of some of the regional production within the old ITV centres of excellence, and they were providing programmes to meet independent quota. If the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) were to come about, it would be perfectly feasible to reconsider whether the 25 per cent. figure were satisfactory. I am sure that the Committee would agree that if we ever got to that 
 position, things would be a darn sight better than they are now, given the trends of the past two or three years. We would have accomplished a great deal in terms of the re-emergence of programming made in the regions for the network. 
 I said that the provision is perverse in two ways, and I now come to the second. My understanding is that a programme made by a broadcaster from another country in Europe, similar to the kind of broadcasters that are currently denied the opportunity to contribute towards the independent production target, would qualify as contributing towards the independent production target. One could not discriminate against them. That is a little perverse, to say the least.

Michael Fabricant: Does that mean we may get more Smurfs from Holland?

Peter Atkinson: Order. I have endeavoured to be tolerant with the hon. Gentleman who broadened the debate on the clause, but it is now getting seriously out of orbit. I ask him not to press the subject much further.

John Greenway: As I am not an afficionado of Smurfs, I will not respond to my hon. Friend's comment. You have been very generous, Mr. Atkinson, but the Committee takes my point.
 I said that I wanted to suggest how the matter might be dealt with experimentally. Granada is a dominant provider of programming to the Channel 3 network and, clearly, it would not be acceptable for a company of that size to be considered for making programmes for Channel 4 or Channel Five and fulfilling their independent quota. The ITC are right to reject it. Why could Scottish Television not be regarded as an independent producer for Channel 4, Channel Five or even the BBC? The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland made the point-[Interruption.] I am going to Glasgow in two or three weeks time so I shall try to look up the hon. Gentleman. It is a great city and it is too long since I was last there. 
 The hon. Gentleman made the point that Scottish Television's productions for Channel 3 network have decreased in number, and that would be a great opportunity for it. I mentioned Anglia Television, Tyne Tees TV and HTV. HTV is in the same situation-

Peter Atkinson: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point and the Committee will understand it. I am frightened that he will take us on a geographical tour of all the ITV regions. I would be grateful if he would bring those aspects of his remarks to a conclusion.

John Greenway: I was about to. Surely it would not be beyond the wit of Ofcom to devise a threshold to take account of the size of an ITV licence holder and its geographical position in order to determine whether its productions could be classed as independent productions. That is pertinent to the clause because it would assist Ofcom to fulfil our objective: it would require Channel 4 and Channel Five to commission programming made outside the M25 for the first time. We debated what that would mean the other day; it
 would mean that the whole lot could be made in Hatfield and Reading. That is not what the provision is about because we want programmes to be made such places as Leeds, Newcastle, Cardiff and Bristol.
 The Minister will have grasped my point. Let us revisit this. I do not anticipate that he will offer to table an amendment to deal with the matter, but an opportunity for Ofcom to address the issue has been lost and should be readdressed.

Parmjit Dhanda: I shall be brief because many of the arguments were explored in depth on Tuesday when we debated clause 256. The amendments tabled in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland and myself-some are supported by the hon. Member for Ceredigion-largely reiterate our commitment to ensuring that the Bill gives Ofcom a significant requirement to ensure high-quality production.
 The clause addresses the need for Ofcom to report on programme production, but focuses more on Ofcom's remit to ensure that every licence for a Channel 3 service must include an obligation to produce a specific amount of programmes outside the M25 area. I am still worried about that, although I welcome the Minister's reassurance. However, I am worried by the use of the words ''suitable proportion'' and I suggest using the words ''substantial and significant proportion''. There is a significant difference between the two phrases and my underlying concern is that the clause gives too much freedom to the new regulator to interpret the suitable proportion. 
 I do not want to bash the Americans, but there is a worry that if Channel 3 licences were extended to American companies, the situation could be exacerbated. If most Channel 3 licences were owned by American companies, we would have a situation in which chief executives sat behind a desk on the other side of the Atlantic. They would be even more removed from UK regions than the chief executives sitting behind desks in London who we discussed on Tuesday. American media companies are global players and they will lobby hard for their own interpretation of what is appropriate to be accepted by Ofcom. Therefore, the amendments are also necessary to protect the new regulator.

Michael Fabricant: I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's argument, although I am unsure whether as a point of law it is correct with regard to ''outside the M25 area''.
 Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, to the United States of America, the British market is big, but not overpoweringly large, and that he should be directing his comments far more at Australian production companies such as Grundy Television, which produces ''Neighbours''? For it, the British market is much more lucrative than its home market.

Parmjit Dhanda: I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says, but my concern is also about American companies rather than just production companies selling products to Britain. That has
 frequently happened with programmes such as ''Home and Away'' and ''Neighbours'', but I was alluding to ownership issues.
 ITV's regional production base will only be secured by strong regulatory requirements in favour of ITV. We will not press the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland to a Division, and we welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's comments. Much of this topic was taken on board on Tuesday and today, so I will not say any more about it because the discussion has gone on for long enough, and it will take place again when we address a couple of later clauses.

Simon Thomas: As hon. Members have said, we debated some of the issues that arise from the amendments in my name and those in the names of the hon. Members for Gloucester and for Glasgow, Anniesland last Tuesday-or last year, or whenever it was. However, there are a couple of points that I wish to address, particularly with regard to the Minister's amendments.
 I welcome them because they incorporate the spirit of some of the debates that we had on Tuesday and especially because they seek to address the fact that there should be more than one production centre outside the M25-that there should be a range of production centres. I still think that the nature of regional programming in the UK-particularly with regard to Channel 3's remit-would be better reflected if the Bill were to contain a specific reference to the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, which is why I tabled these amendments at this stage. 
 I suspect that the Minister will still resist them. However, I wish to bring to his attention one amendment that stands in my name and is supported by the hon. Member for Gloucester. Amendment No. 355 seeks to make it clear that regional development is not just for the regions, but for network ITV programming. That has been touched upon. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) admitted that there had been a reduction in regional ITV productions that get taken forward on to network. That is a sad fact, but it is due not to the quality of those productions but to a change in Channel 3. Over the past few years, it has become more like the third channel with regional opt-outs rather than a collection of regional channels put together. 
 That has been important for Channel 3, and it has been driven by the decline in advertising revenue and the need to have a much stronger branding for the third button on everyone's remote control. The sad side-effect of that has been a decline in the number of programmes that are made at regional level and that are then taken forward to the network level. The hon. Member for Ryedale mentioned that there were 15 licence areas, and therefore 15 production areas. In fact, I think that the correct figure is 16, because HTV Wales is different than HTV West so far as production is concerned-there is a production area in Wales and another Cardiff. Sometimes, one plus one can equal three.

John Greenway: It is even better than that, because ITV actually produces some 27 different local and regional news programmes.

Simon Thomas: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. We are trying to ensure that two things happen. First, that strong regional production for the regional or national market continues, whether by HTV Wales, HTV West, Tyne Tees TV, or others. The Government amendments go a good way down that line and I welcome them on that basis. Secondly, we are trying to ensure, through the clause and the amendments to it, that the regional production centres continue to provide strong, healthy opportunities for good quality jobs in our regions and nations and that there are opportunities for people in those regional production centres to make programmes for network transmission.

Kim Howells: I am a little bit worried about what the hon. Gentleman is saying-I am sure that he is doing it inadvertently-and I want to put the record straight. The Broadcasters Audience Research Board ratings of the top 50 network programmes for the week ending 22 December shows that 10 of the top 20 were made in the north-west or in Yorkshire. Two of the other programmes were made by Thames and the rest were made by BBC 1, some of which would have been made in the BBC regions. That looks like a strong track record for regional production. Why would anyone want to change that?

Simon Thomas: I certainly do not want to change it. I simply want to strengthen it.
 The Minister is being just a little bit disingenuous. We know from the programmes that we choose to watch which regional programmes use a regional theme and do well on network, for example, ''Heartbeat'' and ''Monarch of the Glen'', and which are actually made for the regions themselves. There is a difference.

Kim Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman, because that is an important point. There is a problem with the Big Brother concept-not ''Big Brother'', the television programme-about what people should be watching. We are starting to get qualitative decisions. It is as if we are saying that ''Heartbeat'', ''EastEnders'' and ''Coronation Street'' might be all right, but that those are not really the programmes that we are talking about; that we are talking about something substantially different-about higher quality programmes. Frankly, I do not think that that is what regulation is about. We must acknowledge that the great majority of people in this country are happy to watch programmes that are made in strong regions and the argument ought to be about how we can ensure that all the British regions are as good at making those kinds of programmes as Yorkshire and the Granada region.

Simon Thomas: That is precisely what I am trying to address and I have not introduced any argument into the debate regarding which regional programmes are good and bad. I simply mentioned the programmes in the top 20 that we choose to watch, the nature of those programmes and the production areas that reflect them. Other production areas have greater difficulty in
 getting their regional Channel 3 programmes on the network. About a half an hour ago the Minister, not I, moved an amendment about quality assessment. I think that he is straining a little bit. I do not want to go into too much detail, but I want to emphasise the importance of ensuring that there are strong regional production centres, not only for the regional demand, but the network demand. That is the key point.
 In conclusion, I shall refer briefly to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Ryedale. I would like to hear from the Minister-we have not had the opportunity until now-about the thinking behind why regional production by Channel 3 licence holders cannot be counted as an independent quota, especially if programmes were made by the BBC, Channel 4 or Channel Five. There is a huge problem within the regions, because we are likely to go for single ownership of Channel 3. There are also questions to be asked outside that issue, because it might strengthen regional production. For example, HTV Wales might be successful in selling to the BBC, more so, perhaps, than they are in selling to the network under the ITV level. Who knows? It would be interesting to explore that to see if there is a way within the framework of Ofcom to assist regional ITV companies to make the best opportunity of their regional production centres, than just making programmes for the ITV network.

Richard Allan: I was moved to intervene by the Minister's comments, particularly about the successful ratings of regional programmes from Yorkshire. Leeds has an important cultural industry. It has an enormous spillover effect. There is a vibrant, cultural industry quarter around Sheffield Hallam university, which feeds into regional television production. Well-known programmes, such as ''Emmerdale'', ''Heartbeat'' and ''The Royal'' are on the television map and are hugely successful. The reasonable fear is that a future owner of the ITV Channel 3 licences may decide to engage in a cost-cutting exercise and one target may be regional production centres, such as that in Leeds.
 We want to be reassured that Ofcom will have the teeth to say no to a potential owner of Channel 3, even though the owner may decide for commercial reasons to buy in ''Big Brother'' and still receive the same audiences that it receives for current programmes. I am encouraged by the amendments, because by specifying suitable regional production centres, Ofcom will have such a power. We are seeking such reassurances. I want to stress the importance of regional television production centres-in my case, Leeds and in the north-west, Manchester. Without them, our cultural industry network will be threatened.

John Whittingdale: The clause is concerned primarily with increasing programme production in the regions, but the Minister in his introduction to the Government's amendments rightly placed it in context by referring to the Independent Television Commission review of the programme supply market. That is an important component when discussing regional production. It is worth placing on the record that many people consider that the ITC review is one of the most important documents to strengthen the broadcasting industry
 throughout the United Kingdom. It was published many years ago, and I was disappointed that that we did not refer to it when we dealt with the particular clause. It is worth recognising that this is an important part of the Bill. Credit goes to Lord Puttnam's Committee, which drew attention to the matter. It was a result of that Committee's recommendations that the Government commissioned the review so swiftly.
 There is no doubt that the regional production quotas have been important and that there remains a strong case for them. The review emphasises the enormous economic contribution made by the broadcasting industry. Because we are still dealing with a limited number of big commissioning companies, I accept the need for intervention in the market, even though I do not usually support such measures. The Minister drew attention to successes in achieving a thriving regional production industry, but the report sets out that it is still fragile in some places and that there is some way to go. 
 The report stated that, despite many policy initiatives to encourage output from the regions, production and distribution are still heavily concentrated in London, with about two thirds of all network to new programming, as opposed to that for regional consumption, coming from London. Manchester comes second with 11 per cent., which is a long way behind London. No other city or region accounts for more than 4 per cent. I agree that it is difficult to make a distinction under the clause, but there is a distinction between programming made in the regions for regional consumption, and programmes that are made in the regions for the network and which are to be commissioned for screening throughout the United Kingdom. We have been less successful in the latter area.

Richard Allan: The hon. Gentleman has identified two important categories, but there is a third-programmes made for a region that subsequently prove so popular and effective that they are adopted nationally. Many of the success stories that have been mentioned were not commissioned nationally, but became national because of the quality of the programmes and hard work of the local teams.

John Whittingdale: That is absolutely right. Undoubtedly, there is scope for exploiting regionally focused programmes with appeal, not only throughout the United Kingdom, but abroad. That point was mentioned in the ITC report, which drew to our attention:
''Rights from regional programmes commissioned from independents, by either the BBC or ITV, are retained by the broadcasters. There is very little exploitation of these rights beyond the UK''.
 The report is universally acknowledged to be an extremely good summary of the problems still encountered by regional producers. 
 A major problem is that commissioning is still based in London. The networks have London-based or metrocentric commissioning centres. Independent producers believe that they need bases in London to 
 have any opportunity of bidding for programmes. There have also been instances in which quotas or targets have been manipulated in order to get around the requirements, such as larger independents establishing brass-plate offices to take advantage of regional quotas and so forth. 
 The key point applies throughout the independent production industry, as well as when trying to encourage regional production: quotas are not the problem, but the balance of advantage between the commissioning bodies and the independent producers-the terms of trade. The report says: 
''The absence of formal terms of trade for regional production or indeed any negotiation over terms was an issue that''
 was repeatedly raised by people making submissions. 
 The terms of trade issue and the way in which the report addresses it offers the best hope of giving a boost to the independent production sector right across the board and especially in the regions. Some of the commissioning bodies have behaved in a disgraceful way. Although the BBC said in its guidelines that the aim is 
''to ensure that Independent Producers can choose which rights they make available to the BBC and which they dispose of elsewhere, so that Independent Producers are best able to generate a reasonable profit on Programmes made for the BBC''
 all the submissions made by independent producers have said that there has been virtually no negotiation at all and that a flat cash sum is offered by the BBC, which holds on to the rights.

Peter Atkinson: Order. We are moving into territory that we shall debate later. The clause relates to Channel 3.

John Whittingdale: I may well return to the subject, Mr. Atkinson, although you are right to correct me. The issue is terribly important and it affects all regional producers and commissioning bodies. The report states that if we get this issue right, and readjust the terms of trade to benefit the independent production sector, in the long term, it will be less necessary to impose quotas. Perhaps we will return to that in our later debates. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister envisages as the long-term future of quotas. The independent sector has no particular wish to sustain quotas indefinitely. It has pointed out that quotas sometimes act as a ceiling rather than a floor and that imposing a quota might create a barrier to expansion beyond the target, which would hold back development.

Kim Howells: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. He is right to highlight the role of commissioners because they might see a quota as a ceiling. That does not necessarily spell trouble because I do not think that independent producers would rather be without quotas-I have not met one who has said that. The hon. Gentleman is correct that we must get the spirit right because if quotas are seen as a ceiling, we will not tap the creativity that we talked about earlier.

John Whittingdale: I agree with the Minister about the potential danger of setting an arbitrary, fixed quota. He said that he has not met any independent producers who want to get rid of the quota, and nor
 have I. However, that does not mean that independent producers think that quotas must be in place for ever. They accept that the long-term aim is a situation in which terms of trade and negotiating powers between producers and commissioning bodies are adjusted to the extent that quotas become unnecessary.
 The ITC report draws attention to that. Part of the conclusion says that Ofcom should keep the operation of quotas under review and determine whether they should continue. Conclusion 36 says: 
''Ofcom should also be asked periodically to assess whether the quota itself is still needed''.
 The areas of the operation of quotas that the report said that Ofcom should keep under review include: 
''The regional distribution of programmes commissioned under the quota, to ensure that a reasonable proportion is commissioned from outside London.''
 None of us argue that quotas are unnecessary, and they will remain necessary for some time. However, there might come a moment when an arbitrary target is unnecessary, as the review flags up, if we achieve what we all want: a thriving independent production sector that is not based in London but spread throughout the United Kingdom.

Kim Howells: We have had another lengthy and excellent debate. I was glad that the hon. Member for Ryedale raised the issues that he did. He will know that the ITC considered the issue but concluded that a relaxation such as the one that he proposed would have a detrimental effect on the qualifying independents. It said that it would consider the case again but that it will require robust business cases to be put before it. That is interesting because I have followed the debate in the broadcasting press closely, and there is a school of thought that the independents must get real about ensuring that they have robust business cases for commissioners and others because there is a hard market out there.
 Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, suggested that Ofcom must have teeth to ensure that what we are trying to legislate for will be adhered to irrespective of whether an American company or a German company comes in-some already are in. I have every confidence that Ofcom will have teeth. 
 The market will be a more powerful determinant because of the reasons that I made clear earlier. It is not an accident-there may be a bit of history behind it-that so many of the top 20 programmes are made in the north-west of England and Yorkshire. It is an indication the quality and strength of those production bases. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said that it is possible to strengthen those production bases by understanding their worth in terms of the creative industries that they can spawn. They will get stronger, not weaker. I do not share any of the pessimism that has been expressed, despite what the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) said. 
 The hon. Gentleman raised another important point when he asked where the commissioners were. 
 I often get a bit impatient on that subject. I am always hearing regional ITV companies-and regional BBC companies as well, although we will discuss those later-saying that they do not get their fair share on the network. Very often, if they were producing better programmes, they might get a better share on the network. It is a cut-throat industry, but the appetite for good programmes is enormous-not only in this country but worldwide. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford highlighted the point that we are very smug in this country. We think that we have the best television in the world and that we make the best programmes in the world. However, we are not great at selling them abroad. We should look carefully at the quality and type of programme that meets the requirements of a worldwide market. The Americans are very good at tapping into that. Perhaps a little less bleating and a little more effort into getting the right quality may result in our selling more programmes abroad.

Brian White: Is not getting the distribution controls right one of the key elements in selling abroad? At that level, access to good local production is critical.

Kim Howells: Yes, that is an element, but it is only one variable in the equation of success. There are many other variables and I do not think that one variable alone is the reason for our not selling as many programmes as the Americans do. They have a different kind of industry. It is very close to the film industry and they have a whole distribution and public relations industry for entertainment. We could learn some lessons from them.
 I hope that I can respond to one of the central themes of the hon. Member for Ryedale's speech. The relevant definitions of independent production can be changed by order, so the matter can be kept under review. Ofcom will review the operation of the quota and will report to the Secretary of State annually. That is an important proviso. 
 We have some tremendously strong independent production companies in this country-companies such as Endemol-that put a lot of money into research and development and script development. We do not often put enough money into script development. We can look to the future of programme supply with a great deal of optimism.

Michael Fabricant: Is it not an irony that Endemol is owned by Telefonica, the Spanish telephone company, and is allowed to be quoted as an indie, whereas companies such as Border TV and Tyne Tees TV are not?

Kim Howells: Yes, it is. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is part of the European rules. For the record, I am the Minister who said that he thought it was idiotic and that Endemol should be an independent company. Its production record speaks for itself. It is very diverse. I do not like all the programmes that it produces, any more than the hon. Member for Ceredigion does-and he has very refined tastes. However, it is a company that we ought to be proud of.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 539, in 
clause 276, page 243, line 17, leave out 
 ', in the case of that service,'.
 No. 540, in 
clause 276, page 243, line 22, leave out 
 ', in the case of that service,'.
 No. 541, in 
clause 276, page 243, line 23, leave out 'and'.
 No. 542, in 
clause 276, page 243, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 27 and insert 
 'expenditure of the providers of Channel 3 services on Channel 3 programmes made in the United Kingdom is referable to programme production at different production centres outside the M25 area; and 
 '( ) that the different programme production centres to which that expenditure is referable constitute what appears to OFCOM to be a suitable range of such production centres.'.
 No. 543, in 
clause 276, page 243, line 31, at end insert- 
 '( ) The regulatory regime for Channel 5 includes the conditions that OFCOM consider appropriate for securing- 
 (a) that what appears to OFCOM to be a suitable proportion of the programmes made in the United Kingdom for viewing on that Channel are programmes made in the United Kingdom outside the M25 area; 
 (b) that the programmes for such viewing that are made in the United Kingdom outside the M25 area (taken together) constitute what appears to OFCOM to be a suitable range of programmes; 
 (c) that what appears to OFCOM to be a suitable proportion of the expenditure of the provider of Channel 5 on programmes made in the United Kingdom for viewing on that Channel is referable to programme production at different production centres outside the M25 area; and 
 (d) that the different programme production centres to which that expenditure is referable constitute what appears to OFCOM to be a suitable range of such production centres.'.
 No. 544, in 
clause 276, page 243, line 40, leave out 
 'Channel 3 services are provided; and' 
 and insert 
 'regional Channel 3 services are provided, including any programme made for viewing on a national Channel 3 service other than a regional programme; 
 ''expenditure'', in relation to a programme, means- 
 (a) expenditure which constitutes an investment in or is otherwise attributable to the making of the programme; or 
 (b) expenditure on the commissioning or other acquisition of the programme or on the acquisition of a right to include it in a service or to have it broadcast;'.
 No. 545, in 
clause 276, page 243, line 42, at end insert 
 'and 
 ''regional programme'' means a programme made with a view to its inclusion in a national Channel 3 service as a programme of particular interest to persons living within a particular area of the United Kingdom.'.-[Dr. Howells.]
 Clause 276, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 277 - Regional programming

John Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 397, in
clause 277, page 244, line 5, leave out 'sufficient' and insert 'significant'.

Peter Atkinson: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 356, in
clause 277, page 244, line 11, leave out 'suitable' and insert 'significant'.
 No. 398, in 
clause 277, page 244, line 34, leave out 'suitable' and insert 'significant'.
 No. 399, in 
clause 277, page 245, line 12, leave out 'suitable' and insert 'significant'.

John Robertson: I thank the hon. Member for Ryedale for commenting on my accent. I thought Ryedale was the high school in the film ''Grease'', but there we are. We learn something new every day.

John Greenway: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the problem was not his accent, but the fact that my hearing is declining as the years go by.

John Robertson: I accept the hon. Gentleman's excuse, and I hope that he has a nice time in Glasgow. I assure him that it will be much nicer than where he comes from.
 We have been down this road before, as clause 277 is very much linked with clause 276. The Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union gave some powerful arguments to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester and me, and after discussion, my hon. Friend and I decided to table the amendments. Clause 277 is more about making programmes in the regions for the regions than about ensuring that programmes are made in an area to help sustain jobs, develop specific skills and benefit the local economy. 
 We could also amend the clause so that it would improve the provision of quality content. The Minister made some points about good programmes, and there have been a few from Scotland, of which ''Taggart'' is probably one of the most successful. There is also the new cult programme in Scotland, called ''Chewin' the Fat''. I do not know whether it is a cult programme in the south yet. I wonder whether such a programme would have been made if there were no regional television or any regional quotas for television. I very much doubt it. Some hon. Members would probably need subtitles to understand it. Research shows that viewers like programmes and features that relate to their areas. We had a long discussion about Gaelic and Welsh language programmes under earlier clauses, and that backs up what we are saying. The Minister agreed that such programmes are important. 
 Under the clause, we could give protection to the viewer, and make sure that licence holders are not merely paying lip service to their obligations, but are living up to them. We have already mentioned what will happen as regards who will make the programmes 
 and who will be in charge of what company, and the same applies to Ofcom. Who will be making the decisions in Ofcom's case, and what will their personal opinions be? In many cases, those opinions will relate to how those people view the rules by which they are governed. The production and broadcasting of regional programmes is a vital aspect of public service broadcasting in the UK and a distinguishing factor from the many cable and satellite channels that buy and recycle material rather than invest in production. 
 The British programme sector is widely acknowledged-although perhaps not in the way that the Minister would like it to be-as a world-class centre of creative and technical excellence. However, I must say that there is a distinct lack of reference to music, and particularly live music, in the Bill. I will return to that subject later. One programme that was shown over and over, particularly over the new year, was ''T in the Park'', a successful pop concert in Scotland. If such programmes are not shown and not given a range of broadcasting, they will not be made, and that is an important point to consider. 
 It is vital that we retain a strong regulatory commitment to regional production. It is therefore desirable to make a clear and explicit commitment to providing a ''significant'' proportion of such material, rather than using the far weaker existing formulation, which leaves the regulator open to being put under severe pressure to be flexible on the exact meaning of ''suitable''. I again make the point that the definition of the term will depend on the personal opinion of the person making the decision. Ultimately, we need a meaningful commitment to ''significant'' rather than ''suitable'' proportion of regional programming, and to ensuring that the viewers are offered a wide range of quality programmes with investment to support it. 
 I am worried because it appears that Conservative Front-Bench Members are agreeing a lot with the Minister, and I keep looking for the trap that they are setting. The Minister should beware Greeks bearing gifts. It also appears that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester and I, along with the smaller Opposition parties, are the unofficial Opposition in these debates.

Simon Thomas: Perhaps that is because the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland has set out the reasoning behind these amendments.
 I will make two points. The first of them reflects on an earlier debate. The Minister was quick to say that some of us were using a quality argument. However, the Government's word-''suitable''-has a quality association, whereas ''significant'' does not. That is an important difference. Our amendments are intended to give a steer to Ofcom to ensure that the depth of production in the regions is important to it when it comes to assess the impact of these clauses. The word ''suitable'' can be interpreted in many ways-including a qualitative way-in deciding what programmes are like, whereas the amendments have the virtue of being 
 much more hard-headed in the way that they propose to work out whether regional production is sufficient. 
 Secondly, I wish to draw the Minister's attention to amendment No. 356 because it has a slightly different effect than the others. It gives Ofcom the power to ensure that the regional programmes that are shown in a particular franchise area are made in that area. We have strong regional production centres-Leeds and Manchester, for example, and Cardiff-which make successful programmes, as the Minister has outlined, but I have a fear about smaller and currently less successful regional production centres: a new owner of ITV could use Leeds to make programmes for Glasgow or use Cardiff to make programmes for Bristol. That would be a retrograde step in the provision of regional broadcast centres and programming.

John Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if there were league tables, innovative programmes-particularly regional ones-would have no chance of being on television?

Simon Thomas: I agree. ''Chewin' the Fat'' has been shown in Wales, and I saw it-although I am unsure whether it has been shown in the rest of the UK.
 It is good that programmes that are made in regional production centres-both BBC and ITV ones-feature heavily in the list of the top 20 programmes, but that does not reflect the whole range of programme making in the UK, and neither does it reflect the need for creative industries. 
 Where will the new ideas come from? Even the most popular current programmes began as new ideas: ''Coronation Street'', ''Brookside'' and ''EastEnders'' were huge innovations, but they are now staples. All those very popular programmes started off as innovative ideas; initially they were cultish-not many people watched them, perhaps-but their audiences increased. ''Prisoner: Cell Block H'' never quite made it, but so be it. 
 All those points reflect the need to maintain strong regional broadcasting centres. Amendment No. 356 would require Ofcom, when looking at the range of regional programmes, to ensure that programmes were made not only for particular regions, but substantially in those regions.

Michael Fabricant: ''Coronation Street'' was originally commissioned as only six programmes for the network but is now the longest-running soap in the world.
 Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that technology has moved on slightly and that although programmes such as ''Coronation Street'' require large permanent sets, many programmes such as ''Heartbeat'' are made on location and are either filmed or use electronic television production? That means that large production centres are no longer needed, just a small number of offices. That provides more flexibility, so perhaps the Minister is right in saying that a programme with a strong regional heart does not necessarily require huge costs and a huge production centre. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's fears 
 about a single ITV are not so well founded, given modern technology.

Simon Thomas: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about technology. Certainly the independent sector in Wales takes advantage of that, having small offices and using freelance staff and technicians. A very successful programme can be put together without having large production centres. I have no doubt about that.
 However, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will support the main point that I am trying to get across: whatever the heart of a region's programmes, whether or not they reflect regional nature, as does ''Heartbeat'', that range of programmes should nevertheless be made in that region. Even given the Government's amendments to previous clauses, it would be remiss of us to allow a Bill to be framed so that it allowed three or four significant regional production centres-Manchester Granada is the obvious one-to become the production centres for all the 15 ITV franchise areas. The amendments would maintain not only regional programming but regional production centres.

Michael Fabricant: I have sympathy with the amendments, so I am slightly playing devil's advocate, but does the hon. Gentleman not accept that were ''Heartbeat'' filmed in Sussex or Cornwall, or even southern California, that would be pretty obvious to the viewer, and it would not have the popularity that it now enjoys?

Simon Thomas: ''Heartbeat'' could be filmed in the Brecon Beacons and not look very different, so I do not know whether that is true. I could go on about the use of Wales as a wonderful film location. There is a lovely beach in my constituency called Penbryn, to which hon. Members can go-unfortunately I have now given away its secret. If they do, they will see that it was the location for the closing shots of the latest Bond film. That is supposed to be the south Pacific, so the hon. Gentleman's view does not quite hold water. It is possible to fake such things on television and film. However, the import of the amendments stands as explained.

Kim Howells: We have had quite a lengthy debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland was quite right to talk about the success stories. ''Taggart'' was, of course, made by SMG Television Productions and had an audience of 7 million on ITV, which was very impressive. I have not had a chance to see ''Chewin' the Fat'' and I could not find its audience figures, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will tell me what they are at some stage.
 The amendments would require regional Channel 3 services to allocate a ''significant'' amount of air time to regional programmes instead of a ''sufficient'' amount. They would also require regional, local and national Channel 3 services to ensure that a significant proportion of their regional or local programmes were made in the relevant area. The current formulation requires that to be a ''suitable'' proportion. 
 I shall enter a debate for a moment. The hon. Member for Ceredigion was right to say that the beaches in Wales are great film locations. They have 
 no rivals in Europe so far as I am concerned. However, I also agree with the hon. Member for Lichfield on that point. It might be possible to take a few shots for a James Bond film on a Welsh beach and get away with it, but elements of regional character go into regional production. That is especially true for television. Miracles can be worked with film production because there is money to be spent but, generally speaking, that cannot be done with television. The hon. Gentleman was quite right to say that that regional character comes through in such productions, and is consciously exploited by programme makers. This Committee seems to have very little faith in the nous and professionalism of those television producers. They understand very well that if they can tap into that regional character as well as into regional talent, they will make good programmes.

Michael Fabricant: Indeed. Does the Minister not agree that it is often cheaper to produce such programmes regionally than centrally because of factors such as accommodation costs? Although the hon. Member for Ceredigion said that one hill looks a little like another, surely buildings vary a great deal in structure, for example, there are stone buildings in the north and others in Wales. Programmes need to be produced authentically.

Kim Howells: I agree entirely, but I shall not be drawn down that route now. I saw a film at the weekend that was supposed to be set in Wales but had Irish theme music and very, very English accents among the ethnic Welsh. They kept referring to somewhere called ''Lanelly''.
 We all agree that regional programming and, as we have just heard in the clause 276 debate, regional production are key elements of public service broadcasting. All the research shows that people see regional broadcasting as an essential part of Channel 3 and want it to continue. They want to see programmes that reflect their regional identity and they want those programmes to be broadcast at peak viewing times, when they are most able to watch.

John Greenway: Before the Minister sits down after replying on this extremely important clause, which answers many concerns that Committee members have expressed, can he assure me that the BBC agreement will have the same impact on the BBC as the clause will have on Channel 3? At the moment, a large number of my constituents do not believe that they are getting a regional service for their region, because it comes from another part of the United Kingdom.

Kim Howells: If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I shall not comment on that now because we shall discuss that agreement at some length later. He will know that the agreement and the charter come up for renewal in 2004, and his point is very strong. We must take that on board.
 In the case of regional programming, there is no reason why a ''sufficient'' amount of time and a ''suitable'' proportion of programmes cannot be ''significant''. That may very well be the case. However, Ofcom requires some flexibility to 
 determine what is appropriate in the circumstances, taking into account market, cultural and other relevant factors. I sympathise with the spirit of the amendments, especially those tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Anniesland and for Gloucester. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester needs all the consolation that he can find after his rugby team was slammed by Munster at the weekend.

Parmjit Dhanda: Although the cherry and whites were indeed robbed in Munster, I must remind the House that we are still top of the league. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister respects that.

Peter Atkinson: Order. When we continue, can we return to regional television? I gather that Gloucester lost because someone left their game plans in a taxi in Ireland.

Kim Howells: That sounds like Gloucester.
 The Bill's provisions aim to ensure that public service broadcasting, taken as a whole, continues to reflect UK cultural traditions and meet the needs of diverse social and linguistic communities, to use the favourite words of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). They will also ensure that programmes for both national and regional audiences are made in the United Kingdom outside the M25 area. I hope therefore that my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Ceredigion will withdraw their amendments.

John Robertson: Once again the Minister has waxed lyrical and persuaded me. Before I agree to his request, I want to reiterate that regional programming is of the utmost importance, particularly to the people who live in those regions. I hope that the Committee has taken that on board. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 277 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 278 - Regional programming-making for Channel 4

Amendments made: No. 546, in 
clause 278, page 246, line 10, leave out 'and'.
 No. 547, in 
clause 278, page 246, line 13, at end insert- 
 '(c) that what appears to OFCOM to be a suitable proportion of the expenditure of C4C on programmes made in the United Kingdom for viewing on Channel 4 is referable to programme production at different production centres outside the M25 area; and 
 (d) that the different programme production centres to which that expenditure is referable constitute what appears to OFCOM to be a suitable range of such production centres.'.
 No. 548, in 
clause 278, page 246, line 19, after 'section' insert- 
 ''expenditure'', in relation to a programme, means- 
 (a) expenditure which constitutes an investment in or is otherwise attributable to the making of the programme; or 
 (b) expenditure on the commissioning or other acquisition of the programme or on the acquisition of a right to include it in a service or to have it broadcast; 
 and'.-[Dr. Howells.]
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Michael Fabricant: I shall not detain the Committee long. The glory of Channel 4 is that virtually all its programme output is independent production because it does not make its own programmes. Given the arguments presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, who asked that ITV companies be regarded as independents, does the Minister think that Channel 4 has a responsibility to commission programmes from-

John Greenway: Let me clarify my hon. Friend's question. I am not suggesting that ''Countdown'', the hugely successful programme made by Yorkshire Television in Leeds for Channel 4, should be regarded as an independent production programme. I am simply suggesting that some of the smaller ITV companies might make programmes for Channel 4 and be regarded as independent. Subject to that clarification, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking the Minister the question.

Michael Fabricant: I thank my hon. Friend. This is a rather peculiar procedure because in a way I am not giving a speech, but asking a very long question of the Minister. Does the Minister not think that this is a good opportunity for Channel 4 to promote independent production among the smaller ITV companies?

Kim Howells: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman got there eventually. It is not my place to tell Channel 4 from where it should commission its programmes. It has done a very good job of commissioning. The clause is intended to ensure that that good work is acknowledged and to encourage Channel 4 to ensure that it commissions work across the country, in every region, whether large or small.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 278, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 279 - Inclusion of regional matters in

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Greenway: This might not even take 30 seconds. The clause is important and I want to highlight the fact that the regional teletext service on Channel 3 is a vital part of the teletext information service. Even now it is not replicated on the BBC to the same degree. In the regions away from the south-east, such as the north of England, which is the area that you and I represent Mr. Atkinson, it is a very valuable public information service. I am glad that the clause clarifies that Ofcom will continue to make that requirement in relation to the teletext service.

Kim Howells: The clause requires Ofcom to include in the public teletext licence conditions that ensure that
 the service includes an appropriate proportion of material that is of particular interest to people living in different parts of the United Kingdom. That obligation will be imposed on both the analogue and the digital service, but different provisions may apply to take account of the different technical characteristics of each service.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 279 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 280 to 284 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 11 agreed to. 
 Clause 285 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 286 - Schools programmes on Channel 4

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Richard Allan: It is worth examining the clause. It sets out Channel 4's duties in respect of schools programming. As well as programmes on television, provision is made for associated materials for schools' educational purposes. How does the Minister see that fitting in with the larger discussions about the BBC's contributions to a digital curriculum? It is clear that television providers freely supplying educational programme causes disruption in the market, and those who provide educational materials on a paid-for basis have strong opinions about how that should take place. A decision has been made about the BBC's output, which increasingly is not only that of traditional television programmes, but associated materials such as internet sites. That is a sensible market for it to get into if it wants to provide material that will be used in schools.
 How will Channel 4 fit into such arrangements? Will the whole public sector-or freely available output-be looked at as one, so that those who want to play in the commercial side of the market can understand what has been taken out and given to both BBC and Channel 4? The clause covers Channel 4 in particular, but will such debates take place separately? I want to explore the arrangement. I am keen to see the output of both the BBC and Channel 4 continue in a strong form, because that is useful to schools and huge public interest has been expressed in it. In doing so, however, those with business plans who want to develop commercially need to know where they stand. The extent to which Channel 4 will be in the market must be clear, if the commercial players are to be certain about the areas in which they should be involved.

Kim Howells: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam for giving me an opportunity to comment on the clause and the role of Channel 4. I shall not go into depth on what has been a prolonged debate about the on-line curriculum and so on. The clause requires Ofcom to include in the Channel 4 licence the conditions necessary to ensure that a suitable proportion of programmes on Channel 4 are schools programmes. That is important.
 Channel 4 has a successful record and a well-deserved reputation for providing schools programmes. We want that to continue. That is why we are retaining a specific commitment for Channel 4, based on the existing obligation under section 34 of the Broadcasting Act 1990. It allows the Independent Television Commission to include conditions about schools programmes in the Channel 3 or Channel Five licence but, in practice, to date neither channel has been required to provide schools programmes under the provision. We are therefore repealing section 34 and, in future, a specific legislative obligation in relation to schools programmes will apply only to Channel 4. That is not to say that we underestimate the importance of schools programmes, as the hon. Gentleman hinted-we consider it to be very important-or the need for all public service broadcasters to provide programming of an educational nature. As he reminded us, the BBC will continue to provide schools programmes and indeed it is strengthening its ability to do that. Under the BBC's agreement, it will continue to provide programmes of an educational nature including formal education and vocational training programmes. 
 All public service broadcasters will have a joint responsibility to contribute to the general public service broadcasting remit set out in clause 256. Among the requirements encompassed by that remit is the provision of a suitable quantity of high-quality and original programmes for children and young people and a suitable quantity and range of programmes on educational matters. Although each broadcaster will have a different role to play in fulfilling the general remit, they will be under an obligation to make a substantive contribution. Channel 4's specific commitment to schools programmes reflects its unique role as a public body and as a commercially-funded public service broadcaster. I commend the clause to the Committee. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 286 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 287 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 288 - Conditions prohibiting interference

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Michael Fabricant: Again, I have a question for the Minister. I find this an extraordinary clause. It relates to interference with other services, and primarily deals with the public teletext service. Does that mean that the private teletext service, which is two or three lines of data that television stations use for communicating with each other and with regional production centres, is exempt? Does it mean that other forms of sub-band are exempt? I am sure it does not, but it is extraordinary that teletext should be included and others are not. Why is that?

Kim Howells: The clause requires Ofcom to include in the licence for the public teletext service conditions
 that prohibit the licensee from causing interference with any television broadcasting service on whose frequency it is provided or any other wireless telegraphy transmissions.
Michael Fabricant rose-

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman should contain himself. I am capable of checking a bit of paper in my left hand while reading a bit of paper in my right hand. Because the teletext service uses spare capacity on frequencies assigned to other broadcasters, the risk of interference exists in theory. That is an important point. I am not aware of examples of that, but similar provisions exist in the Broadcasting Act 1990.

Michael Fabricant: Ah!

Kim Howells: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment more, I will try to answer him. The public teletext service is in a special situation because it uses spare capacity of frequencies assigned to other broadcasters. That is why-in theory-there is a risk of interferences that would affect the viewers of Channel 3 and Channel 4 services.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 288 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 289 - Categorisation of listed events

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Whittingdale: How things change! Some of us who are veterans of the 1996 legislation, including you, Mr. Atkinson, and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness, the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms). This issue led to the greatest Government defeat in the House of Lords since the second world war, and when we debated it in the Committee on the 1996 Broadcasting Bill it could be described, if not literally, as having caused blood on the Floor. It was one of the most hotly debated and contested issues in the entire Bill, and had I not risen to my feet it might have passed without debate-and here we are again six or seven years later. It is worth pausing, because this is an issue of great importance to sport, and sport often generates great passion.
 In the past, both sides in the debate have recognised the importance of the decision to maintain a list of protected events that are required to be shown on free-to-air channels, rather than to have the rights going to a subscription service. I accept that there is probably a need for that, although I am not utterly persuaded about that in the long term. That immediately gives rise to a huge argument about which sporting events should be on the list. That, too, was something that generated great controversy during the passage of the 1996 Act. 
 On balance, I think that the existing list is correct. Certain sporting events-those that are now on the 
 group A list-will always be central to the life of the nation. We can argue about whether one or two events are equally important to some people. The Minister would probably want all Pontypridd matches in a special category on the group A list. Each sport has its fans. Some have argued that Formula 1 motor racing, perhaps the British grand prix, should be on the list, but it is not at the moment. Not everything can be included, however, and the list probably reflects a general consensus. It has evolved over the years; there has been much talk about it, and I would not necessarily argue about it. 
 It is interesting that the sports bodies sometimes argue about which events should be on the list. I remember that in 1996 the England and Wales Cricket Board argued vigorously that test matches should not be listed. We must bear in mind the fact that nowadays the sale of television rights is one of the greatest sources of revenue for all sports. It is inevitable that if the number of bidders for those rights is restricted, the outcome will be a lower price. In maintaining a list we are making a conscious decision that is likely to deprive the listed sports of the full revenue that they might have received had there been an open market for the sale of rights.

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend is right in pointing that out, but does he accept that that occasionally works the other way? People at Wimbledon said that they would prefer not to have tennis available only on pay-per-view. It follows that they do not think that there needs to be a list, because they would decide whether to restrict broadcasts to the BBC.

John Whittingdale: My hon. Friend is entirely right. He makes the point I was coming to, which is that the sporting bodies have to strike a balance. They must try to maximise the revenue that can be invested in the development of their sports, their facilities and in training and other areas, and they have a duty and a desire to ensure that the maximum number of people are able to enjoy the major events. There is also a related matter of access. That is a difficult balance to strike, and it is one that has occupied much time in the House over the years.
 I noticed that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) had an Adjournment debate a couple of years ago on the subject of pay TV and the suggestion that particular matches might be available only on a specific charge. The hon. Member for Gloucester, who has temporarily left his seat, also secured an Adjournment debate a couple of years ago on access to sport and the development of the list of protected events, which are known colloquially as ''the crown jewels''. There has been a lot of argument. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield made an interesting point. Who is best placed to judge what should be listed and whether a potential loss of revenue for sport should be accepted in the interest of getting the widest possible audience for events? Is that for us in the House to judge or for the sporting bodies? As my hon. Friend said, the tennis authorities have concluded that it is important for the Wimbledon finals, at least, to be broadcast free to air so that the 
 maximum number of people can enjoy them. I welcome that sensible decision. 
 The fact that sporting bodies can reach such a conclusion inevitably makes us ask whether we need to intervene to maintain the list of events. On balance, we probably still do, but it is important to accept at every stage of the debate that we might be depriving sport of money. A fantastic amount of money has been raised for sports through the sale of television rights. 
 A debate is being held outside this Room to consider whether London should bid for the Olympic games, although our debate will influence that. Much consideration is rightly being given to potential costs, because significant expenditure would be required to build sporting facilities. However, the Arup report, which the Government commissioned to examine potential costs and benefits, points out that there would be a guaranteed income associated with the games and that the principle source of that would be from the sale of television rights. Television rights for the Olympic games are sold throughout the world, and that raises huge sums. 
 The greatest sporting event in the world is obviously the Olympic games. No one would suggest that the event should not be listed in group A as a fully protected event for live coverage on free-to-air channels. However, a subscription channel might think that buying the rights to cover the Olympic games would be the very thing to boost its number of subscribers. It could not do that-probably rightly-but that would deprive the Olympic games and London, if its bid were successful, of revenue. 
 There has been much controversy about the sale of football television rights. One is tempted to reflect on the recent history of ITV Digital and the sale of television rights for the Football League. The immense consequences for league clubs due to loss of revenue after the premature demise of ITV Digital show how important such money is to sport. One such consequence has been the bankruptcy of several clubs. Argument still rages about ITV's responsibility and whether it has liabilities, although there has been movement on that at last. That is an illustration, if we needed one, of how important the issue is.

Kim Howells: Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me strong encouragement for what he is saying? We must remember that the market might look very good, but he will remember that World cup rights were bought by the Kirsch Group, which bit the dust in no uncertain terms. ITV Digital is not the only casualty, and not the only company that has had a detrimental effect on the fortunes of the sport the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

John Whittingdale: The Minister is entirely right, but when a commercial company makes a judgment about the value of a contract and gets it wrong-ITV Digital, for example, clearly believed the value of exclusive coverage of league matches would be greater than it was-to some extent, it has made its bed and must lie on it. It is not for Government to intervene, and I am sure that the Minister is not suggesting that they should. They cannot say to ITV Digital, ''Look, you're
 paying too much; you can't do that.'' The Government cannot second-guess the market in that way.
 There will be casualties, I am afraid. There is a big question about if not the legal liability, then the moral duty that some ITV companies have towards football league clubs. However, I shall not go further down that road, although it is an issue about which many people feel fairly strongly. I should also like to reflect on the benefits that football has gained from the coverage of the deal reached in the past 10 years or so with Sky. When the first contract was signed, it was worth roughly £192 million to the premiership. The second contract, which was signed five years later, was worth £670 million, and the third BSkyB live contract £1.1 billion.

Peter Atkinson: Order. The clause is about listed events and their categorisation. Although I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman has to say, he is going rather wide of the essence of the clause.

John Whittingdale: Of course I accept your judgment, Mr. Atkinson; I merely add that the question of whether premiership matches should be included in the list is a live issue that many people have debated. The fact that the premiership matches are not in the list has resulted in £1.96 billion going to the premiership because of the deal that it did with Sky. That deal would obviously not otherwise have happened, but the premiership would have made some money, because ITV or the BBC-whichever got the rights-would have paid a large sum for such a deal. However, it is clear that they would not have paid as much as Sky was willing to pay. Both Sky and the premiership have benefited as a result.
 We are not just talking about the really big events or big players; it is perhaps not so well known that the voluntary code on sports broadcasting rights included an agreement that a minimum of five per cent. of TV income should be set aside for grass-roots sport development. We should consider what that has meant right across the board to different sports. The Minister's Department published a document outlining some of the benefits not so long ago. In 2000, some £7 million went on grass-roots cricket, £32 million on grass-roots football, and £17.5 million on youth development in football. That has been hugely beneficial right across the board. 
 When considering restricting the market for sports events, it is important that we bear in mind the wider question of the good that the sale of television rights has done in benefiting sport, right from the very top to the very bottom. That raises another interesting question. At the moment, the justification for listing events is that there are many people who would not have access to those matches or tournaments or if they were exclusively shown live on a subscription sports channel. There are two reasons why people might not have such access: first, they might not have digital television, and so would not get the chance; secondly, they might not be able to afford to subscribe to Sky Sports or whatever the channel. We hope that the first reason will be removed in time, because we all agree on the need for digital switchover. That cannot happen until virtually the entire population are willing to change over to digital transmission. Therefore, the first 
 reason for maintaining a list of events will be removed as everyone will be able to access digital subscription channels. 
 The second reason still applies-whether it is right to require that matches or events are free to air. We will need to revisit that question when we reach the point of digital switchover to decide whether it is still necessary to maintain the list. I do not suggest that it will not be, but it will be interesting to see what the broadcasting world looks like by that stage. We will also need to re-examine the various individual tournaments and matches that appear on the list. That will provoke a widespread debate in which we must listen to the sporting bodies themselves.

Brian White: Is it not only the sporting bodies, but those who watch the sport who have an important say in that debate? The sporting bodies have a vested interest, but the people who watch the sport may have a different point of view.

John Whittingdale: Obviously we should listen to everyone who has an interest in the issue. We should not suggest that the sporting bodies will deliberately reach arrangements that they know will result in large numbers of a particular sport's supporters being unable to access events, because in the long term that would be an extremely silly thing to do. It would lead to the decline of that sport. If people cannot watch a particular sport, the chances are that they will go off and follow something else.

Richard Allan: We are assuming that people will be able to access subscription sports channels in the future because they will all have digital television. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the problem of bundling could still be a problem? Cricket fans effectively subsidise premiership football because sports' viewing is bundled into large expensive packages. Having to pay for a larger package just to see the odd event throughout the year is an idea that a large proportion of the public find unacceptable.

John Whittingdale: The issue of bundling has provoked controversy over the years. The hon. Gentleman said that cricket is subsidising football, but the truth is that all sports benefit-they receive money from the sale of rights at no cost to themselves. Technical difficulties would be involved in allowing viewers to pick and choose which sports to subscribe to. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Bundling is a problem and the issue should be kept under review by the competition authorities.

Michael Fabricant: With the expansion of pay-per-view, people will pay only for what they want to see, which gets round the unbundling problem.

Peter Atkinson: Order. Before the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford replies, unbundling is getting a little remote from the question we should be debating, which is listed events.

John Whittingdale: I accept your judgment, Mr. Atkinson, but unbundling is wrapped up in the issue of listed events. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield mentions pay-per-view, and the hon.
 Member for Milton Keynes, North-East expressed on a previous occasion his concerns about the consequences of moving to a pay-per-view arrangement.
 I do not want to prolong the debate because the heat has gone out of the argument, at least for the time being. The fact that we are having a short discussion on the issue with, I suspect, little disagreement, is a reflection of how much the broadcasting world has changed in a relatively short time. Six years ago, people were almost coming to blows on the subject. The issue is of huge importance to a large number of people, so I hope that the Minister will say a few words about this clause and related clauses, and explain how he sees the future of listed events as broadcasting continues to change and as we move towards digital switchover.

John Greenway: I do not want to demonstrate the differences in view and emphasis within the Conservative shadow Cabinet, but I will make one or two points that my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford did not make. This issue caused a big row during discussions on the 1990 Bill. Were Mr. Gale here, he would confirm that. At that time, there was a strong argument that we should abolish listed events completely. As one of those who argued that we should not, I think that our decision then was right. The list known as list A has stood the test of time pretty well. However, at the margins, the issue is more difficult and could be revisited.
 I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said. We have to consider the value to sports of whether television rights are sold to pay-per-view channels or to free-to-air channels. Sports may be denied the opportunity of selling to channels other than free-to-air channels if their events are listed. When sports weigh up their long-term interests, they have to consider the value of spectator interest. At the moment, all professional football-not only the premiership but the other leagues as well-benefits from supporter and spectator interest because of the quality of what people are seeing. I am thinking of the broadcasting of live FA cup matches-more of which we will see this weekend, on terrestrial channels-and premiership highlights. If those games were not available to the general public, interest in football would wane. Sport, especially football, has probably got the balance about right. 
 My hon. Friend was right to highlight the voluntary agreement of the Central Council for Physical Recreation-which I can remember greatly encouraging all those years ago. Football is now very much on board and the value of the money coming into the Football Foundation will be seen the length and breadth of England in the months and years ahead. 
 The England and Wales Cricket Board and the Lawn Tennis Association are putting substantial amounts of money into grass-roots sport.

Kim Howells: They need it, too.

John Greenway: I am sorry?

Kim Howells: I was suggesting that, in the light of England's abysmal performance in Australia, they certainly need money to be put in.

John Greenway: Well, I hope that the Glamorgan academy can make a contribution to the new talent that we clearly need. I gather that we have lost the first of the three one-day finals by 10 wickets in a relatively short time.
 There is a second value that is even more important than the first one I mentioned-the value to sponsors. This is a point on which I disagree slightly with my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford. If we consider the Olympic games, the British Olympic Association is able to send-

Peter Atkinson: Order. I interrupt to stress to the hon. Gentleman that clause 289 is about the categorisation of listed events. I am a liberal-minded Chairman, as he knows, but he is becoming very wide of the mark.

John Greenway: The Olympics are broadcast on national free-to-air channels. Sponsors pay for the British Olympic team; no public subsidy is required. Companies are willing to pay for sponsorship, because of the huge audiences that are attracted to the sport. If the Olympic games were shown only on subscription television, it would have a detrimental effect on the sponsorship of the British Olympic team. That is an important issue when deciding on the categorisation of some events.
 It is a pity that the Ryder cup is on list B. It was a great shame that only people with access to Sky television, as I have, were able to see the closing holes of the great Ryder cup triumph in September last year. Other people had to listen to the commentary on Radio Five Live. I am a great supporter of that channel's sports commentary. Where would we be without it? However, golf is not a great sport for radio. Commentators do their level best, but to be told in whispers that the ball is running towards the hole, or that it has stayed up or gone in, is not as gripping as seeing it happen. 
 I want to make a suggestion. Given that the Ryder cup takes place over three days, will the Minister think about having its final day on list A, and the first two days on list B?

Michael Fabricant: Any other bids?

John Greenway: The Ryder cup is one golf event in the world that is not about money. It is about competing. That is its history and, for that reason, perhaps those who want to sell the rights and receive the best money for them will have regard to that spirit. Given that most homes still have analogue television, many people in the pre-digital era would have the opportunity of seeing the final holes of the Ryder cup. Such action takes place for only a couple of hours once every two years. Even though we are pessimistic about cricket, the Ryder cup is an event that we win from time to time and at which we beat the Americans.

Kim Howells: I heard the hon. Gentleman loud and clear, as I did the hon. Member for Lichfield. I shall pass on the message.

Brian White: Does the Minister recognise that the fact that we can tackle the Americans is because we do so on a combined European theme? That shows the benefits of Europe.

Kim Howells: I am not quite sure about that. I am not entirely on-message on the matter. I am not sure that it has anything to do with the Bill.

Peter Atkinson: Order. I am sure that it is out of order.

John Whittingdale: My hon. Friend has made an interesting suggestion. Had I thought of it before, I might have taken it up. It was about amending the list categories of those sports in which we stand a chance of winning, such as women's curling.

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman has stolen my best line.
 The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford made an interesting point about pay TV. Could it fund the Olympics, for example? The protections under discussion apply to the United Kingdom and while mutual recognition provisions on such matters exist in Europe, they do not prevent the worldwide sale of rights to, for example, a United States pay TV provider. The rights to the Olympics reside with the European Broadcasting Union, which includes the BBC. 
 I shall respond briefly and explain, as you have attempted to explain on many occasions, Mr. Atkinson, about the nature of the clause. Following the previous review of listed events in the period 1997-98, a distinction was drawn between the different categories of events in the list-hon. Members have spoken at some length about group A and B events. The clause provides that if an event is listed, the Secretary of State will allocate it to one of the groups and she may decide to move an event from one group to another, subject to the same consultation requirements that are already applied to a decision to list an event. Under those requirements, the Secretary of State must consult Ofcom, the BBC, the Welsh authority-that gives Pontypridd a chance-and the person from whom the television rights for each event may be required. The clause, like clauses 290 to 292, is intended to ensure that the provisions regarding the list of events continues to run smoothly in future. I move that the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 289 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 290 to 292 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 293 - Code relating to provision for

John Whittingdale: I beg to move amendment No. 285, in
clause 293, page 254, line 21, leave out 'from time to time' and insert 
 'at least once every three years'.

Peter Atkinson: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 315, in 
clause 293, page 254, line 29, at end insert- 
 '(1A) In exercising its functions under subsection (1) OFCOM must ensure that the providers of services to which this section applies provide users of those services with adequate information regarding the availability of and access to subtitling.'.
 Amendment No. 316, in 
clause 293, page 254, line 30, leave out 'tenth' and insert 'fifth'. 
 Amendment No. 313, in 
 clause 293, page 254, line 43, leave out '10' and insert '50'. 
 Amendment No. 314, in 
 clause 293, page 255, line 22, at end insert 
 'taking account of whether a programme is provided on a channel which is normally offered to consumers as a separate service or as one of a number of channels forming part of a single service'. 
 Amendment No. 284, in 
 clause 293, page 255, line 41, at end insert- 
 '(9A) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to collate and publish at least once each year details of the extent to which every service to which this section applies has met the obligations referred to in subsection (3).'. 
Amendment No. 243, in 
clause 299, page 258, line 34, after 'channels', insert- 
 '(aa) the listing and promotion of programmes accompanied by aids to viewing including subtitling, audiodescription and signing;'.
 Amendment No. 244, in 
clause 299, page 258, line 35, at end insert- 
 '(2A) The code must include minimum requirements and best practice guidance on making electronic programme guides accessible to people who are blind, partially sighted or have other disabilities.'.
 New clause 15-Conditions to secure access to audiodescription- 
'(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to set such general conditions as they consider appropriate for securing that audiodescribed television programmes, so far as provided in digital form, are- 
 (a) broadcast or otherwise transmitted; and 
 (b) made available for reception in an intelligible form, 
 by means of the electronic communications networks described in the conditions.'.
 New clause 27-Conditions to secure access to public teletext service- 
'The regulatory regime for the public teletext service includes the conditions that OFCOM considers appropriate for securing that the provision of so much of the public teletext service as is provided in digital form is accessible to persons who are blind and partially sighted.'.

John Whittingdale: We return to the issue of greater access for those who are deaf or visually impaired, some of the different aspects of which we have covered in earlier debates. Concern about that issue is felt throughout the Committee. The Royal National Institute of the Blind and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People have concerns about how the Bill could be improved to strengthen the protection for deaf and visually impaired people and they have done a good job in drawing those concerns to the attention of Committee members. That is reflected in the large number of amendments in the group, which have been tabled by all the parties that are represented in the Committee.
 I will concentrate on my amendment No. 284, which was suggested by the RNID. Some of the amendments in the group were suggested by the RNIB and, although they were tabled by other Committee members, we share their objectives. I will, however, leave it to other hon. Members to develop their own arguments in relation to particular amendments. 
 Amendment No. 284 is small, but it would ensure that the information that is already being collected is put in the public domain. I am always conscious that in seeking to ensure greater access for deaf and blind people we should remember that sometimes that might involve some additional cost to the broadcasters. In this instance, however, I do not think that it would lead to a great burden on broadcasters. It is expected that Ofcom would maintain similar arrangements to those used by the ITC, whereby licence holders are required to provide details about what percentage of their programmes are subtitled. Such a requirement is necessary to ensure that the targets for subtitling, signing and audiodescription are being met. The amendment ensures that such information is freely available and can be inspected by those who have an interest in such matters. That could be achieved without great difficulty; Ofcom could publish the information on its website. 
 The purpose of amendment No. 284 is to create an environment where the legal requirements for subtitling are treated as merely minimum requirements. The broadcasters have shown good commitment to that. They have voluntarily gone beyond the minimum requirements: the BBC has committed to 100 per cent. subtitling provision for all its channels by 2009 and, as in previous years, ITV has committed to exceed the minimum requirement that it faces with the production of 114 hours of subtitling per week. Those developments are very welcome. It would be in the broadcasters' interests to get maximum credit for their record in this area, so I hope that they would also welcome the fact that that should be made widely available, and that is the purpose of the amendment. 
 Amendment No. 285 refers to the first line of clause 293, which states: 
''It shall be the duty of OFCOM to draw up, and from time to time to review and revise, a code''.
 To state that Ofcom should review the code ''from time to time'' is extraordinarily vague-it could mean once a week or once every 50 years. It would be helpful if Ofcom could be given an indication of the time scale that is envisaged for this obligation. We have suggested that ''from time to time'' should be replaced by 
''at least once every three years''.
 The code should be subject to fairly regular review because it deals with provisions with regard to which technology will inevitably play an important role. That technology is developing fast: unless there is a regular review, the impact of the code could be diminished, because it might no longer properly reflect what is technologically possible.

Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend not feel that the amendment presents a slight danger?
 Although there needs to be a regular time for reviews, there might not need to be regular revisions. The amendment is phrased in such a way that if it were adopted the clause might force Ofcom to revise the code even when revision were unnecessary-in other words, a review might be necessary, but a revision might not.

John Whittingdale: I am not a lawyer, but my hon. Friend is suggesting that lawyers might interpret the amendment as stating that Ofcom has to revise the code every time that it reviews it. That would be ludicrous, but if that is an accurate legal interpretation, he would be right about the amendment presenting a danger that should be addressed. However, I think that it is unlikely that a lawyer would argue that. If the review concluded that the code was working perfectly, it would be nonsensical if Ofcom then felt that it had to revise it because the Bill said that it should do so.
 I wish to return to technology, because that lies at the heart of the reason why there should be a regular review of the code. I offer as an example the current technological developments in subtitling provision-in relation to voice recognition technology, for instance. To illustrate the technological problems of that, I will make a diversion. I recently purchased voice recognition technology for my personal computer, and I spent several weeks speaking into it and getting complete gibberish appearing on the screen.

Andrew Miller: Now the hon. Gentleman knows what we have to listen to!

John Whittingdale: Some hon. Members may think that that was an accurate reflection of what I said, but I would like to believe that it was a technological failure rather than a failure of what I was saying. I am assured that such technology is developing very quickly, and it is quite possible that, before too long, we will develop software that can automatically produce subtitling with much greater ease, and that would obviously increase productivity in subtitling.
 Similar developments are occurring in relation to sign language provision. Virtual signing technology could eventually replace the need for a human interpreter. Also, closed signing, in which signing is selected by the viewer in the same way as subtitles, is another development in technology that Ofcom might have to consider in the not-too-distant future. Developments in broadcasting generally will also inevitably have an effect on the code. For example, the code will have to keep up to date with the growth of interactive television. That is still in its relatively early stages, but last night on ''The Life of Mammals'' on the BBC, David Attenborough said at one point that viewers with digital might like to press the red button to gain a little more information. Clearly, interactive television will provide more additional services as the technology develops. That, too, needs to be taken into account by Ofcom to ensure that the code properly reflects the current state of technology. 
 The amendment would ensure that we met the objectives that we all share. It would make sure that 
 Ofcom properly ensures greater access for deaf and visually impaired people, and that the code governing that is up to date and properly takes account of the fairly rapidly changing world of what is technologically possible.

Brian White: My two amendments to clause 299 are included in the group of amendments under discussion. I must tell the Minister that last night I met people to talk about my private Member's Bill on sustainable energy. They regaled me with the story of how, after the Minister skilfully rejected my amendments to the Utilities Act 2000 on combined heat and power, people in the Department of Trade and Industry now wish that they had the sort of powers that I was pushing for. Given that, I hope that he will accept my amendments.
 My amendments are designed to ensure that when Ofcom considers electronic programme guides, it takes into account not just the nature of the programmes but the design and nature of the EPGs, as those are key factors in determining whether people can use them. At the moment, a great deal of frustration is felt by those using the keypads, and those of us who are not as dexterous as others find them difficult to use. Disabled people have several problems to tackle regarding the nature of the design and how the programmes are accessed, and they need to be addressed. The code of practice is the right vehicle for doing so. 
 At the moment, a great deal of effort is spent on new technologies, as hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford rightly mentioned. He also paid tribute to some broadcasters. The VISTA-Virtual Interface for a Set-Top Box Agent-project that the ITC, BSkyB and City university are trialling at the moment will revolutionise disabled viewing. However, there are a number of regulatory issues. My amendments would not tie down the service providers to a particular technology or solution, but would ensure that the issues were considered. It is right that we should address the issues under the code of practice, so that when people are developing new technologies, they know the sort of issues that need to be resolved. I am quite certain that, with good will, such disputes will be resolved. I could stray down the road of interactive television, but I will not. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of several issues about that. 
 There is no point developing the most wonderful multichannel environment with the most wonderful EPG if people cannot access it. My amendments would ensure that access and design would be tackled as part of the code of practice.

Simon Thomas: I shall speak briefly to new clause 15. This is our third debate on access for deaf and visually impaired people to broadcasting services. It is right that we have had that many debates because it gives us a chance to explore new aspects of services. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East did that when he talked about interactive services.
 My points about new clause 15 are similar to those that were raised during Tuesday's debate on clause 60. I want to ensure that broadcasters carry services to 
 allow deaf and visually impaired people to take advantage of subtitling and audiodescription as technology improves and there is a possibility of more services, especially in a digital format. On Tuesday, we said that technology such as DVD, which includes options for audiodescription or subtitling, is increasingly available. The services should become available through the mass media so that it is generally available rather than available only for individual purchase. 
 We tend to forget the wide extent to which subtitling is accessed. It is used not only by people who call themselves disabled, but by those who have a bit of trouble following the noise of a television in the background. Elderly people use subtitling most often, but others find it useful. People in Wales who want to learn Welsh use subtitles to follow Welsh-language programmes. Although watching subtitles on broadcast programmes was considered to be strange several years ago, it is now part of the viewing experience. The fact that pressing the interactive red button on a remote control often produces more text on screen will increase the extent to which people will use television to access a range of information and entertainment that mixes vision and text. 
 New clause 15 would ensure that Ofcom would set general conditions that it considered appropriate for the digital transmission of audiodescribed television programmes. We discussed the technical problems with that on Tuesday and the Minister told us why the availability of audiodescription on digital television had not moved along. He said that there had not been 
 enough co-ordination between different parties, and no doubt his comments were listened to. 
 The new clause would not prescribe the audiodescription that should be available but would mean that Ofcom would have a duty to decide the general conditions that it considered appropriate. I followed the Government's language in the Bill by giving Ofcom powers to decide what should be appropriate. The new clause does not prescribe in any shape or form. However, I want to ensure that Ofcom gives proper consideration to making audiodescription for programmes available in the widest possible form on digital. We discussed problems of satellites in that regard on Tuesday. 
 I hope that the Minister will accept that such a provision would strengthen Ofcom's role in relation to disabled people. During consideration of the Office of Communications Bill and this Bill, we have debated whether a representative of people with disabilities should serve on the Ofcom board. Given that that was turned down in favour of a small and narrow board of regulators, I hope that the Minister will accept that Ofcom should have a general duty to consider the matters.

Peter Atkinson: Order. I deem it to be 11.25 am. We shall adjourn until 2.30 pm, and the Room will be locked in the meantime.
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.